Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
i_should_coco

Which version of Photohop?

39 posts in this topic

Is Elements ok? I really, really don't want to have to fork out for the full version. Just for general photography work really.

Edit: That should read 'Photoshop'. :roll:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a copy of Elements 6 on Amazon for £20. It is the previous version, but I am sure it will do everything you need.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Adobe-Systems-Inc-Photoshop-Elements/dp/B000VZEIOS

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best version? GIMP - it's free, very similar to photoshop and does for 99% of stuff I do. I'd urge you to give it a go before paying...nothing to lose if you don't like it.

i_should_coco wrote:

Is Elements ok? I really, really don't want to have to fork out for the full version. Just for general photography work really.

Edit: That should read 'Photoshop'. :roll:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mac2006 wrote:

Best version? GIMP - it's free, very similar to photoshop and does for 99% of stuff I do. I'd urge you to give it a go before paying...nothing to lose if you don't like it.

i_should_coco wrote:

Is Elements ok? I really, really don't want to have to fork out for the full version. Just for general photography work really.

Edit: That should read 'Photoshop'. :roll:

Ah, yes. I tried that a while back and found it hard work. Will try again...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i_should_coco wrote:

Is Elements ok? I really, really don't want to have to fork out for the full version. Just for general photography work really.

Edit: That should read 'Photoshop'. :roll:

I think Elements 6 is OK and has some good facilities. It is very buggy however and Adobe have not released any updates to resolve these. It can be slow to load and the Organiser and Editor both have a tendency on occasions to 'time-out' or crash. Elements 7 does not seem a significant upgrade at all for the casual user - in fact my favourite version which worked seamlessly was 3.

On balance it is a decent package though it can be quite irritaing at times. It is very memory hungry and a bit bloated as software goes though I still reckon it's pretty decent offering a fair proportion of Photoshop facilities for a fraction of the price. Despite it's failings it's still my editing program of choice.

Try Picasa which is free asit may be sufficient for you. Simpler than Gimp and quite nifty for nowt :).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use both elements and 2 and 3. I prefer the full photoshop, because I find the workflow more logical, but elements does do 80% of what photoshop does, but note it WONT read raw files from some cameras. JPEG's are fine. Enquire carefully before deciding I suggest.:?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

rockmeister wrote:

I use both elements and 2 and 3. I prefer the full photoshop, because I find the workflow more logical, but elements does do 80% of what photoshop does, but note it WONT read raw files from some cameras. JPEG's are fine. Enquire carefully before deciding I suggest.:?

JPEGs are the devil's work anyway - you can always process to TIFFs which are lossless...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends whose jpegs they are....those produced by the D300 for example are almost indistinguishable in quality from the raw files (that is to say, a straight blow up to A1 would reveal hardly any extra detail, and no difference at all in exposure or colour saturation) but the raw file contains some info that allows slightly finer image tuningin photoshop. This is especially true of highlight and shadow detail, but frankly, if you understand exposure, you can get one of these spot on at the time of pressing the shutter anyway.Raw files have more downsides than upsides for the amateur photographer IMO, esp those who use a motordrive a lot, or who are off on an assignement with lots to shoot.

Any cynicism can be dispelled by you shooting two identical piccies, one High quality JPEG and one raw and posting both here with no processing....dont say which is which and we'll run a blind test?:)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

rockmeister wrote:

It depends whose jpegs they are....those produced by the D300 for example are almost indistinguishable in quality from the raw files (that is to say, a straight blow up to A1 would reveal hardly any extra detail, and no difference at all in exposure or colour saturation) but the raw file contains some info that allows slightly finer image tuningin photoshop. This is especially true of highlight and shadow detail, but frankly, if you understand exposure, you can get one of these spot on at the time of pressing the shutter anyway.Raw files have more downsides than upsides for the amateur photographer IMO, esp those who use a motordrive a lot, or who are off on an assignement with lots to shoot.

Any cynicism can be dispelled by you shooting two identical piccies, one High quality JPEG and one raw and posting both here with no processing....dont say which is which and we'll run a blind test?:)

The problem with JPEGs is that they are lossy. If you edit one and save it, it loses data. Try it - open a JPEG and do 'save as' 20 times. It will degrade, even if you make no edits. For post-processing, you should use a lossless format like TIFF.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i_should_coco wrote:

7's available for only £40 or so...

I bought this recently and am only scratching the surface. It comes with Adobe Camera RAW, so you can process before saving in any lossy(or lossless) format. Bear in mind, you can always upgrade if you are really really addicted/clever/keen.:^

From your photo's I assumed you already had photo shop?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HiFiWigWam wrote:

i_should_coco wrote:
7's available for only £40 or so...

I bought this recently and am only scratching the surface. It comes with Adobe Camera RAW, so you can process before saving in any lossy(or lossless) format. Bear in mind, you can always upgrade if you are really really addicted/clever/keen.:^

From your photo's I assumed you already had photo shop?

Ah, the camera RAW bit is good to know. :^

The only thing I've used so far is DPP to sharpen and correct exposure/white balance. (I don't shoot JPEG any more after discovering how nicer results I can get in RAW).

What I would like is better workflow as I find DPP clumsy for doing lots of images at once, especially if they all need something slightly different and more flexibility for shadow/highlight recovery.

I think I shall download the trial and compare to GIMP.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i_should_coco wrote:

rockmeister wrote:
It depends whose jpegs they are....those produced by the D300 for example are almost indistinguishable in quality from the raw files (that is to say, a straight blow up to A1 would reveal hardly any extra detail, and no difference at all in exposure or colour saturation) but the raw file contains some info that allows slightly finer image tuning in photoshop. This is especially true of highlight and shadow detail, but frankly, if you understand exposure, you can get one of these spot on at the time of pressing the shutter anyway. Raw files have more downsides than upsides for the amateur photographer IMO, esp those who use a motordrive a lot, or who are off on an assignement with lots to shoot.

Any cynicism can be dispelled by you shooting two identical piccies, one High quality JPEG and one raw and posting both here with no processing....dont say which is which and we'll run a blind test?:)

The problem with JPEGs is that they are lossy. If you edit one and save it, it loses data. Try it - open a JPEG and do 'save as' 20 times. It will degrade, even if you make no edits. For post-processing, you should use a lossless format like TIFF.

bored then are we...do you often sit around idly opening and closing files to see if they degrade?:)

Anyway, the point of photoshop is that you dont save files as jpeg's, you save your workflow as a photoshop file which isn't lossy and export it to your designer/printer as a TIFF or PICT or straight PS file. Workflow is all carried out in ps format.

No loss, more pics. faster processing.:)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was my point - why would I start with JPEG? Conversion to JPEG should be at the end of the workflow. JPEGs are the MP3s of the photo world.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.